DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The amendment filed September 15, 2025, has been entered. Claims 1-12 are currently pending.
The previous 112(b) rejections have been withdrawn in view of applicant’s claim amendments.
The indicated allowability of claims 5 and 6 is withdrawn in view of the newly discovered reference to Cunningham et al., 1964 “Effect of Centrifuging Yolk-Contaminated Liquid Egg White on Functional Properties. Poultry Science, vol. 43, pp. 283-291. Rejections based on the newly cited reference follow.
Claim Objections
Claims 2 and 7 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2, line 2, delete the extra “ “ between “for” and “consumption; and
Claim 7, line 1, insert “a” before “food”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 11 recites an animal feed comprising at least 0.1% egg protein. However, there is no basis give for the % (e.g., w/w). Therefore, the basis for the % is unclear. For purposes of examination, the feed will be considered to comprise at least 0.1% egg protein based on the weight of the animal feed composition.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 3-10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sanovo (WO 2014/146660; cited on IDS filed July 27, 2023) in view of Cunningham et al. (Cunningham et al., 1964 “Effect of Centrifuging Yolk-Contaminated Liquid Egg White on Functional Properties. Poultry Science, vol. 43, pp. 283-291).
Regarding claims 1 and 4, Sanovo teaches a process for treating egg whites contaminated with egg yolk, the process comprising adjusting the pH from 1 to 12, and in one embodiment, adjusting the pH from about 7 to 9 (p. 21 lines 24-26). These ranges encompass, or touch, the claimed range, thereby rendering the claimed pH range obvious.
Lipase is then added to the starting egg material to form a mixture (p. 21 lines 9-10).
Regarding the amount of egg yolk present, Sanovo teaches the egg yolk contamination can range from about 0.01% to about 2.5% of the egg white composition (p. 23 lines 12-14). This overlaps and thereby renders obvious the claimed amount of egg yolk present in the starting material.
Sanovo is silent as to subjecting the digested mixture to a centrifugal separation, where at least two phase are formed and subsequently collecting the two phases separately.
Cunningham et al. teach the centrifugal separation of egg yolk-contaminated egg white in order to improve the functional characteristics of the egg white (p. 283 col. 2, 1st paragraph).
Therefore, where centrifugal separation of egg yolk-contaminated egg white was known in the art well before the instant invention, it would have been obvious to have utilized centrifugal separation as taught by Cunningham et al. following the lipase treatment of Sanovo in order to provide separate protein (i.e., egg white/albumin) and lipid (i.e., egg yolk) phases. Based on the teachings of Sanovo and Cunningham et al., this separation would have been expected to further improve the functionalities of the recovered egg white (i.e., protein) phase.
Regarding claim 3, Sanovo recites that the starting material is attained through egg breaking (p. 1 lines 28-30). Sanovo does not teach that the starting material is specifically from an egg breaking plant. However, where Sanovo teaches their process to be applied, generally, to any mixture of egg white contaminated with some amount of egg yolk, the source of the staring material is not considered to provide a patentable distinction where the starting material comprises egg white with some small amount of egg yolk as contamination.
Regarding claim 5, Sanovo does not specifically state that the egg white and egg yolk in the starting material “have been mixed and form an emulsion.” However, where the starting material of Sanovo is an egg starting material, and Sanovo teaches that enzyme is to be “sufficiently mixed” with the egg material (p. 20 lines 27-29), it would have been obvious to have further mixed the egg material prior to the addition of the phospholipase to ensure that the composition was uniformly mixed. Further, any order of forming process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of a showing of criticality per MPEP § 2144.04(IV)C. Therefore, the mixing of the egg material prior to the pH adjusting step is considered to be prima facie obvious.
Regarding claim 6, where centrifugal separation is known to separate mixtures based on densities, by centrifuging the lipase treated mixture of modified Sanovo as detailed above with regard to claim 1, the mixture would have been expected to form three phases as claimed given the starting material (i.e., contaminated egg whites) and enzyme (i.e., lipase) treatment are the same as reported in the prior art.
Further, as stated in In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255 (CCPA 1977): Where, as here, the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, the PTO can require an applicant to prove that the prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess the characteristics of his claimed product. [citation omitted] Whether the rejection is based on "inherency" under 35 U.S.C. § 102, on “prima facie obviousness” under 35 U.S.C. § 103, jointly or alternatively, the burden of proof is the same, and its fairness is evidenced by the PTO’s inability to manufacture products or to obtain and compare prior art products.
Regarding claim 7, Sanovo doesn’t specifically teach that the pH adjusting agent is food grade. However, where the product provided by Sanovo is taught to be utilized in foodstuffs including desserts (p. 9 line 34-p. 10 lines 3), it would have been obvious to have utilized a food grade pH adjusting agent where the resultant egg white product was to be included in foodstuffs. It would have been well within the abilities of one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected the appropriate pH adjusting agent depending on the intended use of the final product.
Regarding claim 8, Sanovo teaches an amount of lipase added is from about 10 U to about 106 U per 1 kg of egg white composition (p. 21 lines 11-13).
Sanovo does not report the amount of lipase as % by weight of total starting material. Sanovo does state that “A person skilled in the art will know that conditions for enzymatic reactions can be adjusted to the required performance.” This includes the amount of enzyme added to the composition (p. 21 lines 28-34). Therefore, one of ordinary skill would have recognized that the amount of enzyme to be included in the preparation could be adjusted based on the desired amount of lipolysis to occur and the conditions (e.g., time and temperature) under which the reaction was occurring. Thus, arriving at an enzyme amount as claimed would have required no more than routine experimentation, and would have been expected to provide a desired result of a sufficient amount of lipolysis in the starting egg composition.
Regarding claim 9, Sanovo does not require a fermentation process before the lipase is added (p. 22 line 32-p. 23 line3).
Regarding claim 10, modified Sanovo does not speak to the amount of fat in the protein phase obtained in step (e). However, given both the prior art and the instant invention start with an egg white composition contaminated with a small amount of egg yolk, treat the egg composition with lipase, and then separate the egg composition using centrifugation, the protein phase of the process of the prior art is considered to have a fat content as claimed in the absence of convincing arguments or evidence to the contrary.
As stated in In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255 (CCPA 1977): Where, as here, the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, the PTO can require an applicant to prove that the prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess the characteristics of his claimed product. [citation omitted] Whether the rejection is based on "inherency" under 35 U.S.C. § 102, on “prima facie obviousness” under 35 U.S.C. § 103, jointly or alternatively, the burden of proof is the same, and its fairness is evidenced by the PTO’s inability to manufacture products or to obtain and compare prior art products.
Regarding claim 12, where Sanovo teaches adjusting the pH to a range of 7-9, the claimed range of “about 6 to 6.5” is considered to touch the pH range of the prior art and thereby be rendered obvious in the absence of a showing that the difference in pH of “about 6.5” and 7 provides an unexpected result. Further, one of ordinary skill would have recognized that different enzymes will have different optimum pH and would have been able to have selected the appropriate pH through no more than routine experimentation depending on the specific lipase being utilized, as Sanovo also teaches that optional additives to the egg white composition may reduce or increase the performance of the enzymes (p. 21 line 33-p. 22 line 1).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sanovo (WO 2014/146660; cited on IDS filed July 27, 2023) in view of Cunningham et al. (Cunningham et al., 1964 “Effect of Centrifuging Yolk-Contaminated Liquid Egg White on Functional Properties. Poultry Science, vol. 43, pp. 283-291) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Johnson (US 3857980).
Modified Sanovo teaches a process for providing a protein phase and a lipid phase from a starting egg composition as detailed above with regard to claim 1.
Modified Sanovo is silent as to the starting material being prepared from eggs not suitable for human consumption.
Johnson teaches eggs not suitable for human consumption were known to be further processed into protein products for pet food (col. 1 lines 12-17).
Therefore, where modified Sanovo teaches a process for providing lipid and protein fractions from an egg starting material, it would have been obvious to have utilized eggs not suitable for human consumption as the starting material, as taught by Johnson, where the final protein product could subsequently be utilized in pet foods. This would have required no more than routine experimentation, as egg material not suitable for human consumption was known to be utilized as a protein supplement in pet foods before the instant invention. By utilizing the process of modified Sanovo with the starting material of Johnson, one would have been able to have provided an improved egg protein product for addition to pet foods.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sanovo (WO 2014/146660; cited on IDS filed July 27, 2023) in view of Cunningham et al. (Cunningham et al., 1964 “Effect of Centrifuging Yolk-Contaminated Liquid Egg White on Functional Properties. Poultry Science, vol. 43, pp. 283-291) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Van Eeden (US 2020/0170282).
Modified Sanovo teaches a process for providing a protein phase and a lipid phase from a starting egg composition as detailed above with regard to claim 1.
Modified Sanovo is silent as to adding the protein phase to an animal feed to provide the animal feed with at least 0.1% egg protein.
Van Eeden teaches a bird feed (i.e., animal feed) comprising at least about 10% by mass protein [0035], and where the protein source may be egg white or whole egg protein [0009].
Therefore, where Van Eeden teaches an animal feed comprising greater than 0.1% egg protein, it would have been obvious to have utilized the egg protein provided by the process of modified Sanovo in the animal feed of Van Eeden in order to provide an animal feed having an egg protein content as claimed. This would have required no more than routine experimentation, as it was known in the art well before the instant invention to include egg protein in animal feed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed September 15, 2025 with respect to the rejections over Sanovo alone under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Sanovo in view of Cunningham et al., where Cunningham et al. teaches centrifugal separation of egg white products contaminated with egg yolk.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Macherey et al. (Macherey et al. 2011. “Use of Mucor miehei Lipase to Improve Functional Properties of Yolk-Contaminated Egg Whites.” J. Food Sci. Vol. 76, pp C651-C655) teach treating egg white compositions contaminated with small amount of egg yolks with lipase.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NIKKI H. DEES whose telephone number is (571)270-3435. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00 am-5:00 pm ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Yvonne (Bonnie) Eyler can be reached at 571-272-1200. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
Nikki H. Dees
/Nikki H. Dees/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1791